Updated 1.4 Primes?

2

Comments

  • esquiloesquilo Posts: 71Member

    It is these weird characteristics about this lens wide open that I love. The effect that gives it its character is the spericial aberration that produces a hazy effect. But when you look closely, it is quite sharp. These three shots were intended to exploit this effect. I could not have done them with any other lens in my collection. Emotionally, it is my favorite lens.
    Frankly, I prefer the character of the AF-S 50 mm f/1.8 more, specially the bokeh. But the 50 mm f/1.2 AI-s is a gemstone. I use the modern 50 for portraits for the smoother bokeh and autofokus, but I prefer the AI-s when it comes to product photo.
    Nikon D7100 with Sigma 10-20 mm, Nikon 16-85 mm, Nikon 70-300 mm, Sigma 150-500 mm, Nikon 28 mm f/1.8G and Nikon 50 mm f/1.8G.
    Nikon1 J3 with 10-30 mm and 10 mm f/2.8
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    I like the 50mm 1.2 Ai-s. My only regret is not using it as much.

    The horse F

    Sriram Posing

    Sure AF would be nice here but with the df it is a joy to use.
  • kanuckkanuck Posts: 1,300Member
    edited September 2015
    I bet those freshly announced Zeiss primes will be rocking a few sensors once they hit people's hot little hands. They sound wonderful and if they are even better than the already excellent ZF .2 line then we are in for a treat. nek4life it sounds like you are a Nikkor AF shooter though right?
    I'm shooting autofocus right now. I used to really like shooting manual focus with split prisms, especially on my RB67. I just thought I read somewhere that there was an issue designing an autofocus lens for the F-Mount with an aperture greater than 1.4, but I'm probably mistaken. I had actually been looking at the 25mm Zeiss ZF F2 for landscapes, but the nikon 24mm F2.8 manual focus is so much more affordable. The new line of Zeiss lenses look interesting. I just wish Nikon would start replacing their pro line with optics that match their current line of sensors.


    Yes I could not agree with you more. The problem is the D800 line has really messed up the Nikkor lineup I think. Most of Nikon's heavy hitter lenses were designed between 2006-2010 before the D800/D4 series came out in 2011. We need some new updated lenses to come out to keep up to these sensors. Zeiss, Tamron, Sigma and Tokina are producing but what about Nikon? Slowly but surely we are getting trickles of updated zooms from fiscal quarter to quarter, but its a painful wait. I thought Nikon had done a decent job updating their primes actually from the 20, to the 24, 28, 35, 50, 55, 60, 85 and then the 300 and the expensive bad boys 400mm, 500, 600.

    Post edited by kanuck on
  • kanuckkanuck Posts: 1,300Member
    edited September 2015
    Those are nice creamy shots Vipmediastar_JZ! Looks just as a 1.2 should. I love the 1.4 Summilux lenses on my M9p, your shots remind me of that "Leica Look".
    Post edited by kanuck on
  • nek4lifenek4life Posts: 123Member
    Hmmm now that for the most part the 1.8g lens line is complete and with the release of the D5 and D500 I wonder if there are any new rumors of the 1.4 line being updated. Going on 6 years this year for some of them. Still thinking about that 35mm 1.4g...
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,403Member
    No real need for new Nikon f1.4 lenses. Sigma Art series are better. I have tested the Nikon 50mm f1.4 against the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art on the same subject in the same light back to back mounted on my D800 and the Sigma is clearly superior. Soon Sigma should release an 85mm f1.4 so Sigma will have the prime f1.4 series complete. I am sure Nikon will eventually update its lenses, I just see no need for myself since I would buy Sigma. I have the Sigma Art 35mm f1.4, the Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 and would purchase the Sigma Art 85mm f1.4 when released.
  • nek4lifenek4life Posts: 123Member
    Sigma makes very nice lenses now. I haven't had the opportunity to use them, but I've seen a lot of the images created with them and they do look nice albeit a little clinically sharp. My main issue with purchasing the 35mm 1.4 art is the climate and conditions I plan on using the lens in. We have harsh winters here and I plan on doing quite a bit of photography outdoors with the lens. I'm sure the Sigma could hold up, but the lack of weather sealing gives me pause whenever I think about spending $900 on a lens. If I purchase a 35mm 1.4g it will likely be used or refurbished so the difference is price isn't going to be half. I would really like to see an update like Canon did with their 35mm 1.4 ii, then I might be willing to pay full price, if it remains around the same prices as the current version (probably fat chance at that...)
  • SnowleopardSnowleopard Posts: 244Member
    edited January 2016
    What I don't get is that they don't need people hand polishing glass elements anymore..... Technology has gotten better, consistency should be better and 1.4 primes should cost half of what they did years ago to produce because the "people/labor" factor can be substantially dropped. These price increases are flat out dumb even with the fake inflation that the stock markets cause.

    I will take a 135 DC F/1.8 or F1.4 for $1000 USD.... not $3000 USD
    Post edited by Snowleopard on
    ||COOLPIX 5000|●|D70|●|D700|●|D810|●|AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D|●|AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D|●|AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G|●|AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D|●|AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (Silver)|●|AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III|●|PB-6 Bellows|●|EL-NIKKOR 50mm f/2.8||
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited January 2016
    A 135mm f/1.4......wow, the front element would be about like on the 200mm f/2.

    As to updating the f/1.4 primes, of which I have a couple, what we may see as the sensor development continues is a decreased interest of manufacturers to think in this way. Leica has always had a selection of what we may see as "slow" lenses, e.g., f/3.5, and my guess is to have the best bang for the buck, actually the highest resolution, we may see more lenses in this category being brought to the marketplace.

    I mean, with a native ISO in the >50,000 range, why do we need the f/1.4 speed? And, my guess is the absolute highest resolution, required with the 50 plus MP sensors we will be seeing, supports slower lenses as I believe it is easier to build a high resolution f/2.8 than f/1.4 lens. My opinion only....not fact!
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 2016
    As much as I enjoy the weight/quality balance of the 1.8g lenses and see the rationality of even slower, better corrected lenses, significantly reducing aberrations and increasing resolution and contrast wide open on 1.4s is an honorable objective for those who like or need the rendering style and limited dof. IMO improvements in all Nikkor 1.4s are desirable, including the 58mm where increase of resolution wide open would induce me to purchase. I favor the 28mm focal length and would like to see a new 28mm f1.4 which renders like the recently introduced Leica 28mm Summilux. Respected bloggers have expressed your same thoughts MSMOTO about slower quality lensesl however I would like that more in telephotos more than WAs to Normal FLs.
    Post edited by spraynpray on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,638Member
    A 135mm f/1.4......wow, the front element would be about like on the 200mm f/2.

    As to updating the f/1.4 primes, of which I have a couple, what we may see as the sensor development continues is a decreased interest of manufacturers to think in this way. Leica has always had a selection of what we may see as "slow" lenses, e.g., f/3.5, and my guess is to have the best bang for the buck, actually the highest resolution, we may see more lenses in this category being brought to the marketplace.

    I mean, with a native ISO in the >50,000 range, why do we need the f/1.4 speed? And, my guess is the absolute highest resolution, required with the 50 plus MP sensors we will be seeing, supports slower lenses as I believe it is easier to build a high resolution f/2.8 than f/1.4 lens. My opinion only....not fact!
    I need 1.4, and it is NEVER because I am in low light. It is to exploit my creative visions.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Important to note.... my opinion is one of someone who was raised up on ASA 400 or less, f/1.8 being pretty much max, and hand holding at very low shutter speeds because that is what we had. In one sense this contaminates my current thinking because I am in awe of the equipment I now have for my use, and just do not seem to be able to think like the "bokeh" folks.

    Thus, my opinion should be looked upon as a side road only.....and now true confession....one of my favorite cameras was a Canon 7 with an f/2 50mm Summicron. (1960's)
    Msmoto, mod
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,638Member
    An f/1.4 lens, sharper at f/1.4 than it is at f/5.6 where it is diffraction limited, is my dream. I would pay through the nose to get it. I would start at 50mm, then 85, then 135 at f/2.0 and keep going as fast as funds allowed.

    Bokeh is beautiful, but wide open sharpness still has a ways to go.
  • nek4lifenek4life Posts: 123Member
    I favor the 28mm focal length and would like to see a new 28mm f1.4 which renders like the recently introduced Leica 28mm Summicron.
    I was wondering the other day why they never made a 28mm 1.4g lens. I also agree with the above in regards to having a sharper 1.4 is more about using the lens at wide open apertures for creative purposes. I think this is even more true with today's high ISO sensors. Of course you'll always need a lens for low light too, but I would wager most people buy them for the look of a 1.4 vs only for needing the extra light.

  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,403Member
    I side with MsMoto on the high possibility that lenses designed for 50+ megapixel sensors may well be slower than f1.4. We may see a series of f2 primes for high megapixel cameras. They will be sharpest at f4 or f5.6 which is where those seeking the sharpest images will be shooting them. Once we have a D5 out and have its sensor tested we will see just how high it can in ISO without losing noticeable dynamic range or color. But we really have to wait for the D810 replacement (later this year with 50+ mp sensor I would guess) before we can determine how high the ISO can be set without noticeable loss of dynamic range or color. Face the facts folks, a lens is generally sharpest about two stops below its maximum f-stop. f1.4 lenses are not sharpest at f1.4 but rather are sharpest at about f4. Maximum sharpness and best bokeh are not achieved at the same f-stop. Thus, lenses designed for maximum sharpness to be used with very high megapixel sensors will not be f1.4 lenses.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,638Member
    I shoot scapes (city, land, sea, street, sky) on a tripod at 5.6 to 11.0 at ISO 100, so don't really care about ISO performance above about 1,000. Portraits may also be at 5.6 to 8.0 on a tripod or off with controlled lighting at ISO 100. This is at all focal lengths and my 85, 135 and 200 get a surprising amount of use. However, at the wide end my small army of 2.8 manual focus primes are perfect.

    However, with portraits with a background, I want really sharp with nice "appropriate" Bokeh. I demand a fast lens for this application.

    There are some examples of low light high ISO shots I have taken handheld. Sometimes I like the noise but sometimes I wish it was not there. I would not trade that for general sharpness in a lens though.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,403Member
    Fast lens for portraits? Sure, but ultimate sharpness with a high megapixel sensor often is not desired for portraiture because few sitters will have perfect skin. I think the 50+ mp sensors matched with an ultra sharp lens will generally not be chosen for portraits at f1.4. What we have now is sharp enough for portraiture. Most of the people I shoot now are middle age and they don't want every wrinkle to show. I have been using my 28-300 zoom at f5.6 or my 24-120 f4 zoom at f4 a lot lately and it is sharp enough. I would like a 35-135 f4 zoom if that were available since I seldom shoot portraits outside of that range. That said, I do want to see produced (and purchase) a very sharp Sigma Art 85mm f1.4 (although my 85mm f1.8 certainly is very sharp) and I would like a Sigma Art 135mm f2! Inconsistent of me. People I know who have that unrealistically priced 58mm f1.4 do seem to love it because of it's "character" even though it is not critically sharp at f1.4. Ultimate sharpness just isn't very important in portraiture. I am sure PitchBlack would disagree with me if he were still reading NR but most of us are not shooting the young models he shoots. We have "cracks" in the faces of our subjects!
  • KnockKnockKnockKnock Posts: 398Member
    Ultimate sharpness just isn't very important in portraiture. I am sure PitchBlack would disagree with me if he were still reading NR but most of us are not shooting the young models he shoots.
    Agree here. Sure some fashion applications demand that absolute sharpness, but the portraiture I do is about beauty, personality or character, not sharpness of eyelashes or hair.

    Instead of reaching for the settings to turn down sharpening and contrast, I like cranking open the aperture.

    Of course this can be taken to extremes and we're spoiled by resolution these days. I recently toyed around with my Olympus OM-2 the 50mm 1.8 Zuiko and Fuji Velvia RVP. Compared side by side shots with D7100 and the 35mm f/1.8 DX. The film setup made a nice pale wash of color and warm skin tones but couldn't withstand blowing up to a 24" display. The digital setup had resolution to run about 30% image size fullscreen.

    I guess many such arguments really come down to intended print/display size and viewing distance. I'm never close to my 46" TV to see pixels. 13" retina laptop, same. Normal 24" display, same. So for me, it's nice to use f/1.4 artistically and I haven't lacked for sharpness, fully knowing what the lens is doing.

    Having said that, I'm sure f/1.8 would be enough for me as well. Or f/2.8 at 105mm. Or f/4 at 200mm.
    D7100, D60, 35mm f/1.8 DX, 50mm f/1.4, 18-105mm DX, 18-55mm VR II, Sony RX-100 ii
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,638Member
    Ultimate sharpness just isn't very important in portraiture. I am sure PitchBlack would disagree with me if he were still reading NR but most of us are not shooting the young models he shoots.
    Agree here. Sure some fashion applications demand that absolute sharpness, but the portraiture I do is about beauty, personality or character, not sharpness of eyelashes or hair.

    Donaldjose and KnockKnock, I agree with some of your points if they are limited to certain applications and when I read carefully you are limiting it to certain applications. For example, someday I will probably buy a 58mm 1.4 for its character and work around its sharpness limitation when shooting wide open. At the end of the day, we all "work around the limitations of our gear." The limitations are just fewer or smaller with better gear.

    However, if you are implying that there is little practical use for an ultrasharp portrait lens, I definitely don't agree, even on an "old" model. There are things that you will want sharp at least some of the time, such as hair, eyelashes, accessories or perhaps something inanimate where bokeh is part of the composition. Flexibility in this area (and other areas) increases as image quality (of which sharpness is a factor) increases. That is one of the primary reasons we spend lots on gear. My wife's D5500 and 35mm 1.8 (DX) is good enough for most of my shots, but not all. If I settle for lens that is mushy wide open, then I will never be able to get the eyes as sharp as I want.

    If you want part of the image softer, that is a simple process in Lightroom and if you really want to nail it, then use Photoshop.

    Bottom line is if you have a sharp image to start, you can make whatever parts you desire as soft as you desire. But aside from a few tricks and deceptions of limited practical usefulness, you can't go the other way with a soft lens.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,403Member
    Yes, most of us want enough sharpness to render the eyelashes sharp. But I was surprised to find I can do that with my 28 to 300mm Nikon zoom at f 5.6 or with my 24 to 120mm Nikon zoom at f4! Strangely, my subjects don't seem to value sharp eyes. Perhaps it is because they are focused on looking for wrinkles they do not want to see.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,638Member
    Most lenses are pretty sharp at f/8.0 or so. It is the whole premise behind my AIS collection. It is opening up that separates the men from the boys. My AIS lenses are quite poor opened up but I don't shoot them that way so it is OK. I am not forgiving of teles.

    I look at eyes all the time, so I want them to be sharp.
  • vtc2002vtc2002 Posts: 364Member
    edited January 2016
    I agree with Donaldejose and Knock knock. There are some instances that require ultimate sharpness but that is only one quality of a good portrait. Focusing on one element will never yield a balanced and/or well executed portrait. Pitchblack portraits are sharp but his focus on other details such as lighting, skin tones, composition, etc all combine to make great images.
    Post edited by vtc2002 on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,638Member
    I am not saying that I only focus on eyes or sharpness. But even if the skin's flaws need to be concealed, a soft image is a soft image and often the eyes are an obvious and dead giveaway.
  • vtc2002vtc2002 Posts: 364Member
    @WestEndFoto my comment was directed at you but a general statement. I agree with you to some degree and I think we are saying the same thing that there is more to a portrait than just sharp focus of the eyes. I have had clients that picked images that were not in tack sharp focus but had a more appealing composition, skin tone, etc. They did not pick the technically perfect image. It is our job to strive to produce the technically perfect image along with the other elements that make a great image but in the end the client has the ultimate decision.

    As a side note. I have never been a big fan of using AIS lens for portrait or wedding work. I have been a back button auto focuser since my days of using film (Nikon F5). Since that time, I have not used the shutter button to initiate focus on my Nikon body. Instead, I disengage focus from the shutter button, and program my D810 or D800 cameras so that the dedicated AF-ON button is the only way to autofocus. I use it exclusively for focusing.

    Combine the back button auto focus with auto ISO allows you to capture dynamic images. There is some configuration you need to do to be a back button auto focuser that I will not go into at this point but the basics are that you are in continuous servo mode, aperture priority and you have set a minimum shutter speed and a maximum ISO setting.

    There are many benefits to this technique such as let's say you are shooting a wedding, as a back button auto-focuser, in single points. You have your point aimed at the bride. She's the most important part of that couple, so you want to get her sharp. Holding the back button (AF-ON) in and you're shooting as they walk toward you. Back button auto focus is tracking. Auto ISO is giving you that minimum 400th of a second and maybe the ISO is going 2800, 3000, 2400 (Max ISO of what ever you chose to set in auto ISO). It's always going to try and stay low. Then, they walk past this beautiful stained glass window where they're bathed with this gorgeous light. (camera clicks) Three frames you were able to squeeze off. What does Auto ISO do in that situation? It goes down to 64, the sweet spot, the lowest number. The shutter speed was probably more than 400th of a second because you are pretty wide open. So, regardless of the situation, you're always going to have that minimum shutter speed and you're going to have sharp images. When you get outside the church, Auto ISO. You don't have time to think or turn it on or off. But it does it for you. It stays low and it's just a wonderful thing. One thing about Auto ISO, it's not a miracle worker. I have found that I have a much higher success rate than staying in Manual or Aperture Priority alone.

    This technique is also very effective in portrait work. You will be able to capture images that you would have missed when the model or client turns their head or moves unexpectedly and has a expression you want to capture.

    I still have some AIS lenses and use them on rare occasions for landscape or architecture images. I usually use medium and large format cameras for this work leaving my AIS lenses to gather dust.



  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,452Moderator
    Sorry to say that for me, back-button focus is like the emperors new clothes. Exponents of it seem to try to make out it is the best thing since penicillin. Those settings that you use and that technique is not dependant on BBF and does not perform any better because you are using it rather than the shutter button to AF. I do the same, except I use the shutter button. Now some folks are old-fashioned, but I go for ease and speed which is to use just the one button. I have no issue with walking backwards with that button half-pressed. For me it is like not having to fiddle with a separate safety-catch in practical pistol, trigger mounted safety catches are a boon. If you don't want to shoot, keep your finger off the trigger (shutter button) if you need to shoot multiple times, keep it on there. :-?
    Always learning.
Sign In or Register to comment.